It is difficult to grasp ideas that offer unconventional solutions to problems we are trying to solve on a daily basis. It is even more difficult to understand such ideas if they offer a fundamentally altered reality compared to what we are used to seeing. Such is the case of alternatives to the growth-addicted conventional sustainability – growth agnosticism and degrowth. They both necessitate an out-of-the-box way of thinking, which might require one to work with definitions and ideas they do not necessarily agree with, or even hold in their mind two opposite ideas, both of which making sense within their own paradigm. Critical thinking is a key asset in years of constant need for reinvention of solutions. Regardless of how radical an idea might sound for one, this should not mean that they discard it immediately. Instead, evaluating different ideas might indeed bring about newer, more objective solutions to current problems. Growth agnosticism and degrowth are only two of many existing ideas which often scare people away. Things are often scary, however, only because they are new to us.
A useful way to think about the three different approaches to the environment-economy nexus (pro-growth, growth agnosticism, and degrowth) is to think of them like different systems, within which different norms and laws apply. Those systems’ role is to solve puzzles, and each system might solve the same puzzle in different ways. In other words, because in different systems different beliefs and laws are expected to work, there could be different ways to solve one and the same puzzle. All of them viable. All of them logical from their own point of view, leading to different explanations of the same phenomenon. Such systems with their own logic are called paradigms. Let us take a real-life example:
a man’s wife is terminally ill; there exists medication that can slow down the illness, however, they cannot afford it. There is nothing else they can do. One night the man decides to steal the medication from the nearby pharmacy by breaking the window, and run away.
The objective result is one – the window of the pharmacy has been broken and the medication has been stolen.
There could be at least three points of view to address the situation, however, all logical within their own paradigm, or logic, (applying their own laws and norms):
- The man had no other choice; he wanted his wife to live more time and he did the only thing that could help her.
- Under no circumstances should someone commit such a crime – this is the law! Regardless of the needs of the man, he should not have done that.
- Had he known the situation the man is in, the owner of the pharmacy would have given the man the medication for free. Only if he had known.
Three approaches to the same issue – all of them reasonable if we follow their own logic. Which logic we adopt depends on our own biases, beliefs and positioning against an issue. With that in mind, let us now get back to the environment-economy nexus and dissect the ‘scary’ approaches to it.
What does it mean to be agnostic to growth? Simply put, as the name suggests, this means there might or might not be growth. On a deeper level of analysis, however, we should acknowledge the inner logic of the growth agnosticism paradigm. Firstly, growth agnosticism juxtaposes itself with the pro-growth paradigm. As we know, the pro-growth paradigm takes growth to be a goal in and of itself. Growth is a necessary precondition for the current global economy to sustain itself and in this way it has turned into a goal as well. Opposing that, growth agnosticism suggests that growth be put aside. Instead of focusing on something that undoubtedly ruins the natural environment, we should shift the focus.
Let us remember the essential question what do we want to be the reason why our economy functions? In the case of growth agnosticism, it is then the thriving of society. A parallel might be drawn here – pro-growth economics also promise thriving societies, and this could be achieved through economic growth, which would lead to technological advancements, GDP growth, standard of living increase and so on. In the centre – growth. Growth agnosticism, however, says that we should focus on redefining what progress means. By positioning the needs of societies in the centre of attention and developing an economy that functions within the safe and just space for humanity, we would be already one step closer to solving growth-caused environmental issues. Such an economy should function for society, not vice-versa. Such an economy should be regenerative with regards to the environment and distributive with regards to wealth, goods and services.
A key idea within the growth agnosticism paradigm is the acknowledgement of boundaries. It is best to here once again recall Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. Imagine a doughnut – the nice part for us is essentially what the doughnut is – not the hole inside of it, not the empty space beyond it. The image below well represents what is meant by this logic – metaphorically, all the activities in a regenerative and distributive economy are only the ones happening in the green parts of the image (i.e. within the doughnut). All other activities would cross essential boundaries which are in the red parts of the image (i.e. outside of the doughnut or in the inner hole). Should an economic activity stretch into the outer red, it leads to ecological degradation; should it stretch into the inner red – then it threatens society and might lead to critical human deprivation. A healthy economy, then, is one that cares for society and environment at the same time, while focusing on the wellbeing of the two, and is sensible about crossing critical boundaries.
Whether growth happens in such an economy or not, it is not important. What is important here is that even if growth happens, it would not be for the sake of growth per se, but with the purpose of sustaining a safe and just space for humanity and environment. And it makes sense – within this logic, of course – that if growth is the problem-maker, but also the main driver of the economy, then we put it aside, rethink the economy and focus on other more important things.
Following this brief analysis of growth agnosticism, a similar analysis of degrowth is easy to conduct. As the name suggests, degrowth is the active reduction of growth. Not a slow-down. Active reduction of economic output. Based on the beliefs that the current wealth that exists in the world is more than enough to sustain humanity without additional output, together with the essential criticism that growth is the precondition for ecological destruction, degrowth also suggests a fundamental rethinking of the economy. On top of that, the degrowth paradigm is essentially suggesting that from a historical perspective, humanity has never needed and indeed does not need as much as it has now. A critic of the consumerist societies the Global North lives in, the degrowth paradigm believes that such constant production and consumption is not only unnecessary, but also leads to critical environmental degradation that could only be stopped if this process is reversed.
There exists a more anthropological variation of degrowth too – humanity’s relationship with the natural environment has fundamentally changed. Humanity has forgotten the fact that it is part of the environment as much as the environment is part of humanity. Therefore, humanity needs to re-evaluate and reimagine this. Lessons should be learnt from olden times, in which humans and nature lived in peace, and humanity only exploited the natural environment in its attempts to survive. In a slow manner, allowing for the natural environment to recover from that.
A key question degrowth proponents could ask is why do I need the newest smartphone, if my older version works perfectly? Overconsumption, overproduction and hyper-growth are but three issues that degrowth proponents try to fight, in order to actively reduce economic output in an attempt to save the environment.
Here, too, the goal is fundamentally different. Once again, it is not growth – logically. Not only is it out of the picture, but it is also a metaphorical enemy. One that needs to be fought, as it is the key reason for the environmental crises we have been encountering and will continue to in case we do not change the goal of the system. What should be the goal? Human welfare! But not the one we know within the current growth-addicted system. Not higher standards of living and higher salaries which could allow us to buy the newest smartphone the moment it is released. Human welfare in the form of happiness, interpersonal connections. The little things we have forgotten because of the consumerist societies we live in. Human welfare is to be found in these small things that do not bring humanity pleasure anymore, because of the constant need for growth, constant need for change, and constant need for consumption. Once this way of thinking is changed, and the goal of the system we live in is altered, only then could we achieve real environmental change!
Now we see how each of the three approaches has its own logic that makes sense within its own paradigm. Despite the philosophical debates that may arise from such interpretations, however, all three approaches provide useful ways of thinking and practices, which all deserve to be in the centre of discussion when it comes to approaching the environmental crisis. After all, it is the environment we all depend on, the planet we live on, the nature we are all part of. Being aware of ways to improve its wellbeing is the first step towards acting up! But what can we do now that we know all of this? To this question I turn in the article to follow – discussing ways in which we could put in practice all that we have thus far theoretically discussed.
